Michael Dugher2015-08-02T18:42:30-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=michael-dugherCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Michael DugherGood old fashioned elbow grease.Airport Commission: Labour Will Be Ready to Back the Decision That Is in the Best Long-Term Interests of the Countrytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.76951242015-06-30T07:42:52-04:002015-06-30T07:59:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
It is widely acknowledged that a decision on aviation expansion should have been taken a long time ago - a failure of consecutive governments, including Labour ones. But if the Airports Commission's findings can show that a number of key tests can be met, we will have an opportunity, and an obligation, to ensure that a decision is finally taken.

Aviation plays a massive role in our economy. The sector directly employs over 220,000 people, produces over £50billion pounds of GDP and pays the Exchequer over eight billion pounds every year in tax revenues.

But the fact is that the ongoing growth of our aviation sector is now at risk. Heathrow has been full for 10 years, while Gatwick is already full at peak times and is set to reach capacity by 2020.

The evidence is clear. More airport capacity is vital to our economic success and we need action if we are to maintain our status as Europe's most important aviation hub. Many other countries in Europe, such as France, Germany and the Netherlands are all investing heavily in their airports. We need to do the same.

Just in the last two weeks, a report by the Independent Transport Commission revealed that if a decision is not taken, we would face significant loss in productivity and inward investment, with the UK economy potentially losing up to £214billion over the next 60 years.

Of course, Sir Howard Davies will publish a substantial piece of work and we will need time to analyse and scrutinise its findings.

But Labour will be clear: if we find that the main recommendation in the final report meets a number of conditions that we have set, we will take a swift decision to back Sir Howard's recommendations.

The tests that we have set include:

First, that robust and convincing evidence is provided that the required increased aviation capacity will be delivered with Sir Howard Davies' recommendation.

Second, that the recommended expansion in capacity can go hand-in-hand with efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from aviation and allow us to meet our legal climate change obligations. This is absolutely crucial. It was a Labour Government that established the Committee on Climate Change and we have always said that aviation expansion must be delivered within our carbon reduction goals and climate change obligations.

Third, that local noise and environmental impacts have been adequately considered and will be managed and minimised. We must recognise that airports are a significant concern to local communities. Any decision on expansion must take into account the impact upon local communities in terms of noise, access and air quality.

And fourth, that the benefits of expansion will be felt in every corner of the country, not just the South East of England, and that regional airports will be supported too. This cannot just be yet another major transport investment just for London.

If these conditions are met, there can be no excuse for the Government to kick the issue into the long-grass yet again. The only reason to do so would be political.

One of the reasons why the previous Labour government did not act quickly enough on aviation expansion was the political management challengers it posed. We know that this time too, this is not an easy issue. But the current Conservative Government's own difficulties with their own party must not influence the Government's approach. We cannot again let politics get in the way of good business - there are too many jobs at stake.

Where and how we choose to expand the country's aviation capacity is likely to be the biggest decision for UK PLC this decade. Labour will be ready to back the decision that is in the best long-term interests of the country - but we really do not have a moment to lose.

Michael Dugher is Labour MP for Barnsley East and Shadow Secretary of State for Transport]]>Labour Has a Better Plan to Fix 'Pothole Britain' and Boost Cycling and Walkingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.71497062015-04-27T04:32:20-04:002015-06-26T05:59:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
Another five years of this neglect and falling investment will only make things worse. That's why Labour has set out a new and better plan to help all road users, including motorists, cyclists and bikers. We have announced that we will reprioritise transport budgets to not only fix Pothole Britain, but to give much needed extra funding to boost cycling and walking across the country.

Potholes are now blighting daily journeys and risking safety for motorists, cyclists, bikers and everyone who users local roads. And these hard-pressed road users and businesses are justifiably sick and tired of having their vehicles damaged because of Britain's pothole crisis.

Almost 50,000 drivers made claims for damage caused to their vehicles by potholes in the last financial year alone. And insurers estimate that potholes are costing motorists £730million a year.

Overall, a third of our local roads are now in urgent need of repair. And since 2010, an additional 2,262 miles of local roads are in such poor condition that they need urgent maintenance work.

But despite this growing problem, the spending plans set out by the Tories and Liberal Democrats will see funding for pothole repair fall by over £80million in the next Parliament. This will only lead to a further deterioration of our local roads.

That's why Labour will fix Pothole Britain and the dire state of local roads through a fully funded £300 million Pothole Fund. This will mean we we'll be able to mend at least an extra 6 million potholes - a third more than under the current Tory and Lib Dem plans, taking the total potholes to be mended in the next five years to 24million.

But as well as fixing Pothole Britain, boosting active travel is a major priority for Labour. Enabling more people to cycle and walk will not only improve the nation's health, but unclog our towns and cities, help people who are being priced out of transport and make our communities safer and better places to live.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg promised a "cycling revolution", but all we've had after five years is a draft Cycle Delivery Plan that has been widely criticised. Just 2% of overall journeys are now made by bike and walking accounts for just 22% of all trips, a 30% decrease since the mid-1990s.

To turn things around, Labour will go further than the Tories and the Lib Dems and create a fully funded £89million active travel fund to support a new long-term strategy for cycling and walking. This will also help to support new local investment in active travel projects and infrastructure.

Crucially, rather than the Government's unfunded transport promises, Labour's plans are fully funded. By delaying just two road schemes (out of a total of 127) that do not currently meet a clear value for money or business case, we can unlock the necessary funds.

Local roads are the arteries of our transport system, but David Cameron and Nick Clegg have been so out of touch that they have failed millions of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

In contrast, Labour is committed to ensuring our local roads work for everyone who uses them. We want to see an end to Pothole Britain and to move cycling and walking from the margins to the mainstream - where it belongs. Labour is the only party with a fully funded and viable plan to make this a reality.

Michael Dugher, Shadow Secretary of State for TransportRichard Burden, Shadow Roads Minister]]>When It Comes to MPs' Second Jobs, the Status Quo Is Unsustainable and Indefensibletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.67439702015-02-24T19:00:00-05:002015-04-26T05:59:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
That's why Ed Miliband has been absolutely right to repeat his call to do something about MPs so-called "second jobs".

Labour MPs and Prospective Parliamentary Candidates have already been put on notice that from the coming General Election, the party's Standing Orders will be changed to prevent them holding second jobs involving consultancies and paid directorships. The party is now consulting on legislation to make this a statutory ban, as well as imposing a strict cap on all outside earnings by MPs. And this week, Ed Miliband confirmed that these measures will be included in Labour's General Election manifesto.

The fact we have seen yet further allegations in recent days goes to reinforce why Labour has been right to call for new rules and new limits on MPs' outside earnings. The perception that some MPs are only in it for what they can get, not for what they can give, merely serves to further undermine Parliament.

MPs are dedicated to the service of their constituents and the overwhelming majority follow the rules. But as Ed Miliband has said: "The British people need to know that when they vote they are electing someone who will represent them directly, and not be swayed by what they may owe to the interests of others."

Decades ago, being an MP was seen as a second job, but it is impossible to deny that things have moved on and that the public's expectations have rightly changed dramatically. Of course it is good for MPs to keep connected to the world beyond Westminster and to have outside interests, but being in touch does not depend on the ability to earn large amounts of money from the private sector.

Despite what many Conservative MPs will tell you, it is perfectly possible to have "outside interests" without having unlimited outside financial interests.

The current rules are clearly not fit for purpose for current times. And a quick scan through the Register of Members' Financial Interests reveals the extent of the problem. Over 90 Tory MPs hold second jobs, meaning almost one in three Tory MPs has a second job. And Tory MPs with second jobs last year declared £4.4million of earnings in the register of members' interests.

There is no doubt that Labour's measures would make politics more open, transparent and trusted. They would not prevent MPs from doing a certain amount of work to retain any skills they had acquired before entering Parliament, such as working as an engineer, doctor or a lawyer. But there would be a reasonable limit, as is the case in many other countries, to how much they could earn. For example, the American system includes a cap of 15 per cent of an equivalent Minister of State level salary.

This week is not the first time that the Tories have come out against the proposals. Regrettably, but not surprisingly, the Government - including Tory and Lib Dem MPs - voted against the reforms in a Commons vote forced by Labour back 2013. It is clear that David Cameron wants to see business as usual for MPs. But the status quo is becoming more and more unsustainable and indefensible.

There will be a clear choice at the next general election: between the Labour Party, which wants big reforms, our politics opened up, and big money taken out of politics - including new rules and new limits on second jobs; or the Tories and Lib Dems who want to keep things the way they are.

The truth is outside interests contribute not to the richness of debate in the House of Commons, but simply to the richness of individual MPs. It's time we did something about it. Every time the Tories and Lib Dems defend the status quo, their MPs may be richer, but our politics is all the poorer.]]>Like With the Rip-off Energy Firms, Labour Is Determined to Take on the Bus Baronstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.63528062014-12-19T04:20:11-05:002015-02-17T05:59:01-05:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/passenger power.

Over 1,300 bus routes have been cut since 2010. People living in rural areas in particular are seeing their bus services disappear. In rural areas, the number of miles of local bus service has dropped by a massive 23 per cent compared to 2010.

At the same time, bus fares are rocketing, going up by 25 per cent since 2010 - an increase five times faster than wage growth. Over the same period, operating costs for local bus services have stayed the same. And new figures also show that bus passenger fare receipts from this year were half a billion pounds more than in 2010.

Bus companies have been cutting crucial routes that people rely on at the same time as whacking up fares to maximise their own profits. Like the energy companies, the bus market is broken.

Currently, 72 per cent of the bus market is run by just five firms: Go-Ahead; Stagecoach; Arriva (under Deutsche Bahn); First Group; and National Express.

These big firms made £518million in 2012/13 and their bosses have enjoyed massive pay packages. For example, Stagecoach's CEO, Martin Griffiths, was paid £2.2million this year, including a £600,000 bonus.

The next Labour government will legislate to give greater control over local bus services to city and county regions. Through the ability to determine routes, set fares and integrate bus services with other forms of public transport, local areas will be able to provide better services at one clearly understood price.

Local bus services are the lifelines of our communities. Whilst the bus companies and people at the top are coining it in, local bus routes are being slashed and yet - in the same way ministers defend the energy market ripping people off - David Cameron is determined to once again stand up for the wrong people.

The way local bus services are provided is not fit for purpose. Labour will stand up for passengers by changing the way things work to hand all English regions London-style powers over local bus services. This will ensure communities get the local bus services they need and deserve.

Michael Dugher MP is Member of Parliament for Barnsley East and Shadow Secretary of State for Transport]]>Labour's One Nation Plan to Bust Open Whitehalltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.51054352014-04-07T19:00:00-04:002014-06-07T05:59:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
David Cameron once sought to be a One Nation Prime Minister, but an economic policy which serves only the privileged few put pay to that. Last week we saw the gulf between out-of-touch Ministers claiming families are better off when, in fact, they are almost £1,000 worse off due to this government's tax and benefit changes and £1,600 a year worse off in lower wages. Regional inequalities are worsening, women are being hit hardest by policies designed by a cabinet with five times as many men as women and increasingly resembles a Britain from another era.

Labour's response has been a radical set of proposals, including a bank bonus tax to pay for a compulsory jobs guarantee to move people from benefits into work, reform of banking and energy markets to ensure they work for consumers and pushing power downwards away from Whitehall to local authorities and individuals.

In the same way that we want to burst the Westminster bubble to disperse power, we also want to bust open up the Whitehall machine. Too often those making key decisions at the heart of government don't look enough like those on whom their decisions impact.

Today ethnic minority employees are under-represented across Whitehall. Over the three years before last the election Labour increased ethnic minority civil service representation by 11%, but under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition this progress has been almost completely wiped out, falling by almost 10% since 2010. Today only 9.6% of the entire civil service is from an ethnic minority and only 4.7% of the senior civil service.

When Labour left office 43% of Cabinet Office senior civil service staff were women - not enough, but we were making progress. Since the election, however, the number of women holding senior civil service posts has fallen by a whopping 9%. Women hold two thirds of the lowest paid jobs but just one in four of the highest paid civil servants are women.

Despite the progress under the last Government, the civil service is still too white, too male and too London-centric: 36% of all civil servants are either based in London, the South East or the South West; only 7% of all civil servants are based in the North East and 12% in the North West.

In the Fast Stream, the programme to develop future civil service leaders, there is a significantly lower proportion of successful applicants from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds compared to the eligible graduate pool.

It is a similar picture in relation to socio-economic status, with those with parents from manual backgrounds being less represented than those from middle-tier occupational backgrounds, who are less represented than those from higher managerial backgrounds. Kids from working class backgrounds are less likely to apply to the Fast Stream, while the numbers of Oxbridge candidates recommended for appointment is on the rise.

The Tories' and Lib Dems' hands off approach means the civil service looks like the last closed shop, based on an institutional elitism which excludes many exceptional individuals with ordinary backgrounds. For those who already feel that the levers of power are distant and remote from their lives the civil service is a closed circle - out of reach and out of touch.

Labour will revamp the Fast Stream to ensure it proactively reaches out to those with a more diverse set of backgrounds.

In government Labour would introduce new targets for the number of successful BAME and working class candidates entering the fast stream programme, reflective of the proportion of national graduates from those backgrounds, which would lead to hundreds more candidates over the course of a Parliament. We would also expand internship programmes for those with diverse backgrounds and introduce a fast-track on to the Fast Stream for those who have completed an internship programme. The under-representation of senior women must also be addressed and will be an issue we will work jointly on as we design our agenda for government.

We know, however, that any reform aimed at increasing the representativeness of the civil service must sit as part of a wider agenda which breaks the link between economic status and educational attainment, so background does not define destiny. This means a focus on social mobility, young people's opportunities and excellence in education and training.

Labour wants a politics based on inclusivity and innovation, driven by openness and debate. That is why we have reformed our Party to strengthen our link with working people and broaden our base of candidates. These reforms to the civil service are from the same mould - seeking a One Nation politics with equality of opportunity for everyone at its heart.

Growing up in working class areas, as both of us did, we saw lots of bright kids that background who never really had a fair chance. It's time we did something about that - and we can start with the civil service.

Michael Dugher is the shadow minister for the Cabinet Office and MP for Barnsley EastGloria De Piero MP is the shadow minister for women and equalities and MP for Ashfield]]>Labour Is Setting the Pace - Online as Well as on the Streetstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.47977262014-02-16T07:20:02-05:002014-04-18T05:59:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/

Within 24 hours, it had appeared on the Facebook timelines of more than a million people. Already, more than 600,000 people have watched it on YouTube, far outstripping anything the party has produced in the past. In an era where pundits and politicians alike bemoan a growing disconnection between voters and parties, it is significant that this 60-second video should have such a reach and reaction.

The video was picked-up and was featured on websites ranging from GC to the Metro. Indeed, when interviewed on BBC's Daily Politics last week, Jim Waterson, political editor of the social news and entertainment website Buzzfeed, called it "the first online video from a British political party to break through the Westminster bubble".

How we communicate continues to change. The rise of social media and online news means that elections will be fought in new ways. It will be quicker, more open, more democratic and more discursive, not least because for the first time it will also be fought online. Broadcast media still continues to dominate, but the fast-declining, overwhelmingly Conservative-supporting press will not have anything like the disproportionate influence they have had in the past.

There are now some 33 million UK Facebook accounts and four out of five daily users do so on a smart phone or tablet. At a time when the readership of the print press continues to fall sharply - major dailies' circulation is down by an average of 30% since 2009 - online news just keeps growing. A third of UK adults now use the internet as a source of news. This itself brings new communications challenges for political parties.

Like the Obama campaign, Labour is taking digital seriously. Our brilliant Digital Taskforce is now a standalone team for the general election campaign and we have hired ex-Obama staffers to sharpen our operation. Already this investment is paying dividends - literally in the case of the growth of our online donations. Our Facebook reach is up 700% on 2013 and our Twitter engagement up 179% on 2012.

In some ways, Labour's approach is even more personalised than the Obama For America online campaign, and we know that digital activity can extend our reach. Our 'thunderclap' last year (simultaneous tweeting of "it's time to deal with David Cameron's cost of living crisis") reached just over 4.5 million people. Labour's cost-of-cameron messages, info graphics and pictures were in the timeline of some 14 million twitter followers last month. This is a revolution in political communications and it works because it is fast, direct, individualised and crucially it engages with people.

But our online activity only serves to compliment Labour's community campaigning - which must be just as personalised - led by former Obama mentor Arnie Graf. Following evidence from 2010 that those areas which had a full-time organiser saw larger swings to Labour, we now have organisers in each of our 106 target seats. And whereas in 2010 the ratio of Westminster HQ staff to those working out in the regions was two-to-one in Westminster, now there is parity with the regions. Labour is breaking out of SW1 - a one nation party in action as well as outlook.

Lord Ashcroft's polling has pointed to bigger Labour leads in the marginals, but the benefit of Labour's community organising approach was also in evidence this week in the Wythenshawe by-election, where Labour now has the largest majority in the history of the constituency. The Tories, who blamed the bad result on the presence of a large council estate in a way that must have had Margaret Thatcher spinning in her grave, ended up eleven per cent down, with a share of the vote lower than in 1992, 2001, 2005 and 2010.

David Cameron is now leading a hollowed out party without roots or a connection to many parts of the country, in particular in large parts of northern England. This weekend we have already seen noises off about David Cameron's indifference to working class issues in Wythenshawe, while Nadine Dorries has gone as far as to call for Boris Johnson to be drafted in to come to Cameron's rescue. If ever you needed evidence of how desperate and out-of-touch the Tories are it is the idea that Boris could be the saviour to re-engage with the working classes up north.

The Lib Dems predictably got battered again. They suffered a staggering 17% swing against them and embarrassingly demanded a recount in Wythenshawe in the vain hope of at least keeping their deposit. The truth is the Lib Dems have now gone from pavement politicians to serial deposit losers.

As for Nigel Farage, despite the privately-educated former City trader's attempt to pitch UKIP as the 'working class' party against Labour, he failed to make the breakthrough he had hoped, not least because UKIP had so little presence on the ground. As the SDP found out in the eighties, you cannot just run a political party from a Westminster TV studio - your demise can be as fast as your rise if you fail to have roots in communities. In the words of Wythenshawe's new MP Mike Kane, voters "rejected the isolationism and scaremongering UKIP".

A combination of winning and mobilising support in the community, a relentless focus on living standards and community worries like the threat to the local hospital, combined with an innovative campaign led brilliantly by Toby Perkins MP, delivered victory for Labour.

Under Ed Miliband, Labour is a party that is changing - in our policies and in how we are opening up our politics with big party reforms. The transformation of our organisation and the modernisation of our communication operation are also significant. We still have a lot of work to do, with Miliband describing himself as the "eternal warrior against complacency", but whether it is online or on the streets, Labour is setting the pace.]]>Labour Is Setting the Pace - Online as Well as on the Streetstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.47977252014-02-16T07:09:52-05:002014-04-18T05:59:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/

Within 24 hours, it had appeared on the Facebook timelines of more than a million people. Already, more than 600,000 people have watched it on YouTube, far outstripping anything the party has produced in the past. In an era where pundits and politicians alike bemoan a growing disconnection between voters and parties, it is significant that this 60-second video should have such a reach and reaction.

The video was picked-up and was featured on websites ranging from GC to the Metro. Indeed, when interviewed on BBC's Daily Politics last week, Jim Waterson, political editor of the social news and entertainment website Buzzfeed, called it "the first online video from a British political party to break through the Westminster bubble".

How we communicate continues to change. The rise of social media and online news means that elections will be fought in new ways. It will be quicker, more open, more democratic and more discursive, not least because for the first time it will also be fought online. Broadcast media still continues to dominate, but the fast-declining, overwhelmingly Conservative-supporting press will not have anything like the disproportionate influence they have had in the past.

There are now some 33 million UK Facebook accounts and four out of five daily users do so on a smart phone or tablet. At a time when the readership of the print press continues to fall sharply - major dailies' circulation is down by an average of 30% since 2009 - online news just keeps growing. A third of UK adults now use the internet as a source of news. This itself brings new communications challenges for political parties.

Like the Obama campaign, Labour is taking digital seriously. Our brilliant Digital Taskforce is now a standalone team for the general election campaign and we have hired ex-Obama staffers to sharpen our operation. Already this investment is paying dividends - literally in the case of the growth of our online donations. Our Facebook reach is up 700% on 2013 and our Twitter engagement up 179% on 2012.

In some ways, Labour's approach is even more personalised than the Obama For America online campaign, and we know that digital activity can extend our reach. Our 'thunderclap' last year (simultaneous tweeting of "it's time to deal with David Cameron's cost of living crisis") reached just over 4.5 million people. Labour's cost-of-cameron messages, info graphics and pictures were in the timeline of some 14 million twitter followers last month. This is a revolution in political communications and it works because it is fast, direct, individualised and crucially it engages with people.

But our online activity only serves to compliment Labour's community campaigning - which must be just as personalised - led by former Obama mentor Arnie Graf. Following evidence from 2010 that those areas which had a full-time organiser saw larger swings to Labour, we now have organisers in each of our 106 target seats. And whereas in 2010 the ratio of Westminster HQ staff to those working out in the regions was two-to-one in Westminster, now there is parity with the regions. Labour is breaking out of SW1 - a one nation party in action as well as outlook.

Lord Ashcroft's polling has pointed to bigger Labour leads in the marginals, but the benefit of Labour's community organising approach was also in evidence this week in the Wythenshawe by-election, where Labour now has the largest majority in the history of the constituency. The Tories, who blamed the bad result on the presence of a large council estate in a way that must have had Margaret Thatcher spinning in her grave, ended up eleven per cent down, with a share of the vote lower than in 1992, 2001, 2005 and 2010.

David Cameron is now leading a hollowed out party without roots or a connection to many parts of the country, in particular in large parts of northern England. This weekend we have already seen noises off about David Cameron's indifference to working class issues in Wythenshawe, while Nadine Dorries has gone as far as to call for Boris Johnson to be drafted in to come to Cameron's rescue. If ever you needed evidence of how desperate and out-of-touch the Tories are it is the idea that Boris could be the saviour to re-engage with the working classes up north.

The Lib Dems predictably got battered again. They suffered a staggering 17% swing against them and embarrassingly demanded a recount in Wythenshawe in the vain hope of at least keeping their deposit. The truth is the Lib Dems have now gone from pavement politicians to serial deposit losers.

As for Nigel Farage, despite the privately-educated former City trader's attempt to pitch UKIP as the 'working class' party against Labour, he failed to make the breakthrough he had hoped, not least because UKIP had so little presence on the ground. As the SDP found out in the eighties, you cannot just run a political party from a Westminster TV studio - your demise can be as fast as your rise if you fail to have roots in communities. In the words of Wythenshawe's new MP Mike Kane, voters "rejected the isolationism and scaremongering UKIP".

A combination of winning and mobilising support in the community, a relentless focus on living standards and community worries like the threat to the local hospital, combined with an innovative campaign led brilliantly by Toby Perkins MP, delivered victory for Labour.

Under Ed Miliband, Labour is a party that is changing - in our policies and in how we are opening up our politics with big party reforms. The transformation of our organisation and the modernisation of our communication operation are also significant. We still have a lot of work to do, with Miliband describing himself as the "eternal warrior against complacency", but whether it is online or on the streets, Labour is setting the pace.]]>Step Up to Servetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.43233592013-11-22T09:45:32-05:002014-01-25T16:01:55-05:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/'Step Up to Serve', a new cross-party and cross-sector national initiative to increase the number of young people taking part in social action across the UK. The event was hosted by HRH Prince Charles at Buckingham Palace and was attended by all three major party leaders, faith leaders, voluntary and community organisations and most importantly by young people from across the country who volunteer in their communities - from scouts to cadets, from kids who help deliver meals-on-wheels or pick up litter, to those taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh Awards.

'Step Up to Serve', of which the Prince of Wales acts as Royal Patron, is focused on young people between the ages of 10 and 20 with the goal of doubling the number of young people taking part in social action from around 20% to over 50% by 2020. If successful, that would result in an incredible 1.7million young people engaging in social action for the first time.

This is a vital campaign as the truth is we are currently failing to maximise the energy, talent and potential of millions of young people in the UK. International comparisons show that Canada, Australia, Ireland and the United States put a much greater emphasis on young people's service to others. This needs to change. Social action not only benefits local communities by building safer communities and increasing civic participation, it also benefits young people by giving them the opportunity to build important skills and attitudes to be successful.

With this in mind, the campaign has agreed a set of principles for quality youth action. These include:

Challenging: stretching and engaging as well as exciting and enjoyable.

Youth-led: led, owned and shaped by young people.

Socially Impactful: creating positive social change that is of benefit to the wider community as well as to the young people themselves.

Progressive: progressing to other programmes and activities.

Embedded: making social action the norm in a young person's journey towards adulthood and a habit for life.

Reflective: valuing reflection, recognition and reward.

To achieve its objectives, 'Step Up to Serve' plans to get more people involved in social action by mobilising the support of organisations right across society, including businesses, schools and the voluntary sector. It already has stakeholders representing over 60 British institutions and it is looking for more. There is no doubt that it makes sense for employers to get involved as social action builds the skills they are looking for in young people. And it also makes sense for the education sector to do more to build social action into schools across the country to help increase opportunities.

The campaign is an umbrella initiative working across party politics and it was great to see all three party leaders pledge to take action to develop more opportunities and encourage more young people to participate in their communities. Others can get involved too by pledging via the website www.stepuptoserve.org.uk or by tweeting using #iwill to show commitment to the campaign.

Speaking at this week's launch, Ed Miliband talked about the spirit of hope encapsulated by the inspiring young volunteers who were so dedicated to improving their communities and to growing as individuals. He said: "There is nothing wrong in our country that cannot be fixed by doing the right thing". In that spirit, let's work together to reach the target of getting 1.7 million more young people engaging in social action and help them Step Up to Serve.

Michael Dugher is Labour Member of Parliament for Barnsley East and Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office]]>Cameron Didn't Say Much Except More of the Same - A Land of Opportunity for Just a Privileged Fewtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.40307722013-10-02T19:00:00-04:002014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
Instead of offering practical policies to help hard working people, David Cameron spent almost the entire time talking about Ed Miliband and the Labour party. The BBC's political editor, Nick Robinson, tweeted that Cameron mentioned Labour no fewer than 25 times (he mentioned the cost of living three times). If this was a football match, the Tories are so defensive and on the back foot that they have got every player behind the ball and back in their own 18-yard box.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan asked the American public: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? After three and a half years of David Cameron, the answer in Britain is that people are much worse off. And this is a direct result of choices the Prime Minister has made. Choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 100 years with our economy growing by just 1.7% since the autumn of 2010, compared with the 6.5% predicted at the time. The UK is currently 3.3% below our pre-crisis peak whereas the USA is 4.6% above their pre-crisis peak. You wouldn't have guessed it from the self congratulatory tone of Cameron's speech, but nearly a million young people are unemployed today.

Over the last three and a half years, instead of standing up for Britain's families and businesses, David Cameron has stood up for just a privileged few, prioritising a tax cut for people earning over £150,000. What's more, in April this year, bank bonuses soared by 82% as people took advantage of the cut in the top rate of tax. Yet the Government refuses to repeat Labour's bank bonus tax.

Last week, Ed Miliband set out Labour's plan to deal with the cost of living crisis: resetting the energy market and freezing energy bills; backing small businesses by cutting business rates; and helping working families by expanding childcare. These are clear, costed policies showing Labour's priorities in tough times.

There was nothing like that from David Cameron. And what new announcements there were this week have already started to unravel. For example, their promise of marriage tax breaks - something the Tories have announced almost every year since 2005 - fell apart immediately with the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies pointing out that it would only help 31% of married couples and 18% of families with children. And even those people who could benefit would only get a maximum of £3.85 a week - less than the cost of a cheese and tomato sandwich in the Manchester conference centre.

The jobs scheme they announced would help just two per cent of people claiming Jobseekers Allowance if it was introduced today. It's less ambitious than Labour's compulsory jobs' guarantee, which would ensure that every young person unemployed for over a year, and every adult employed for over two years, would be offered a job - a job they would have to take or risk losing their benefits.

The Tories' pledge to create a surplus by 2020 might have sounded impressive to those who had forgotten that in 2010 David Cameron made the promise: "In five years' time we will have balanced the books". But the reality is the pledge was just an admission that his economic strategy has failed on its own terms with the Government set to borrow £245billion more than they planned in 2010. So much for fixing the roof.

Perhaps most surprising of all was that the Tories have not been able to say how they would pay for what few pledges they made this week. In contrast to the costed promises outlined by Labour last week, when Cameron was asked during an interview on the BBC this week as to how he would fund his new commitments, his reply was to simply say that he was "quite convinced" the Government would find the money. Can you imagine a Labour spokesperson getting away with that?

As the conference season ends, the difference between Labour and the Tories couldn't be clearer. Labour is setting the agenda and dealing with the real issues facing Britain. Unlike Ed Miliband last week, David Cameron used his speech this year to reassure his party, not talk to the country. It was more like a rally of the 1922 Committee than an address to the nation.

The leader of the Conservative Party always has one advantage during the party conference season - they get to go last. Of all the leaders' speeches, Cameron may have had the last word, but he had almost nothing to say. It was just more of the same from Cameron - a land of opportunity for just a privileged few, not for the many.

Michael Dugher is Member of Parliament for Barnsley East, vice-chair of the Labour party and shadow minister without portfolio. ]]>David Cameron Lost the Syria Vote Because of a Failure of His Leadershiptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.38486302013-08-31T10:22:34-04:002013-10-31T05:12:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
That is why any decision to put the brave men and women of our armed forces potentially in harm's way must be preceded by the most careful of considerations and at all times a calm, patient and cool-headed determination to exhaust every option and to think through every possible implication. As Ed Miliband wrote this weekend in the Guardian:

"When it comes to questions of war and peace, the British people rightly expect that the seriousness of our deliberations matches the gravity of the decisions we are asked to take."

I listened very carefully to David Cameron in the House of Commons on Thursday as he outlined his position on Syria. It was not a moment for politics or the pantomime that normally accompanies occasions like Prime Minister's Questions. And in fairness, many Conservative and Lib Dem MPs also listened intently to Ed Miliband when he made his response to the Prime Minister.

But as Miliband outlined his view that there needed to be a proper international process at the United Nations that was evidence-led, and as he argued powerfully that we needed the "time and space" to come to a judgement and that we shouldn't rush headlong into a political timetable that was being driven elsewhere, one or two sillier Tory MPs, including ministers, regrettably, chose to heckle him with the word "weak".

The events of recent days have indeed shed some light on the contrasting leadership styles of David Cameron and Ed Miliband. The truth is David Cameron lost the vote last Thursday because of a failure of his leadership. Many MPs, on all sides of the House of Commons, felt that the prime minister's rather gung-ho approach meant that the UK was rushing headlong into the civil war in Syria without fully thinking through the alternatives or the wider consequences of military intervention.

It was obvious on Thursday, and from the good faith discussions that had taken place between the opposition and the government in the preceding days, that the prime minister had simply not done the work in terms of outlining a proper process or setting out a compelling case for military action.

This is something that troubled even senior figures in Mr Cameron's own party. The former Conservative foreign secretary Douglas Hurd told the House of Lords that he was "not persuaded that the government have made a case for the action that they propose".

Norman Tebbit was right when he wrote last week that the vote in the Commons was "an expression of a lack of confidence in the ability or willingness of the government to think through the consequences of its policies over a far wider front than Syria".

And the Conservative MP David Davis put it bluntly the day after the vote when he said:

"I am not an anti-interventionist but interventions have to have a clear purpose, have a decent chance of succeeding, and you have to be able to calculate that the risks of it all going wrong are. None of these criteria were met yesterday."

As someone who worked at the Ministry of Defence at the time of the Iraq war, I know only too well that what defined the disaster that became the Iraq war was not just the monumental failure of intelligence or the catastrophe that was the post-war effort. The other big lesson from Iraq 10 years ago is that unless you have a proper, credible process in place leading up to any decision for military action, you will destroy any public confidence and trust.

On Syria this week, Cameron failed to outline a proper international process, he failed to set out the conditions that would need to be met for action to take place, and he failed to make a robust case that reassured people that military action would not make things potentially even worse for the Syrian people. Because of that, he failed to take people with him and to convince the public.

Add to that, in the 24 hours leading up to the crucial Commons vote, Cameron and his aides seemed to proceed in the most cavalier and reckless fashion. Infantile and irresponsible briefings from the prime minister's office combined with a complete organisational and political shambles at Downing Street. If David Cameron has a leadership crisis today, then it is one entirely of his own making.

The British public rightly remain deeply concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria. The House of Commons was united in its horror and revulsion at the shocking images of badly burnt men, women and children gasping for breath in the fallout of the chemical attack. But our desperate desire to help stop the suffering in Syria that, even aside from the chemical attacks, has claimed the lives of at least 100,000 people, wounded another 200,000 and displaced more than four million, cannot lead us to make rushed or wrong decisions.

Labour's shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander set out very clearly in Saturday's Telegraph the urgent leadership role the British government must take to seek a renewed diplomatic, political and humanitarian effort, starting this week when world leaders from the G20 meet in St Petersburg. David Cameron now needs to step up to the plate.

Cameron's defeat in parliament last week should give him the opportunity to reflect on the kind of leadership Britain needs when it comes to Syria. Not impulsive or reckless and cavalier, but calm, measured and considered leadership acting at all times in the national and global best interest. It is about building alliances and having influence. It is about recognising that having the courage to pull back from the brink, to listen to the public and to learn the lessons of history, as Ed Miliband did last week, is actually to demonstrate strong not weak leadership.

Now all the focus of the prime minister and the government in the coming days needs to be in working with our allies to bring the appalling situation in Syria to an end with peaceful means.]]>Questions About How the Tories Fund Their Politics Aren't Going Awaytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.35883822013-07-12T19:00:00-04:002013-09-11T05:12:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
In marked contrast, and using language that is a throwback to the old Tory party, David Cameron offers nothing but an attack on Labour's trade union links. The truth is the Tories positively hate the unions. Despite the fact that six and a half million hard working people - including some of the lowest paid workers in Britain - rely on their union for basic employment protection, Cameron spits out the words "trades unions" from the despatch box of the House of Commons with a venom born out of ignorance, privilege and malice.

But with Ed Miliband's bold and comprehensive reform plans for Labour, the spotlight will now inevitably fall on the Tories and how they fund their politics. The ball is now firmly in Cameron's court. The question is: will Cameron be prepared to act and finally take big money out of politics?

In his speech this week, Ed Miliband declared that Labour would work to build a closer relationship with the millions of working people affiliated to the party through the trade union link. This means moving away from automatic affiliation fees to a system where trade union members choose, as individuals, to join Labour. It builds on the 'Refounding Labour' reforms that opened up Labour to wider supporters. And it is about opening up politics to the public and ensuring that our politics is firmly rooted in our communities.

In recent years, there has clearly been a growing disconnect between the general public and the politics of Westminster. Ed Miliband was right to act swiftly and decisively to take tough new action in light of the uniquely shocking allegations in Falkirk. But as part of the process of re-building public trust and confidence, as well as the need for a more inclusive politics, we also need big changes to the way politics is financed.

This is why, as part of his announcement last Tuesday, Miliband called for renewed cross-party talks on party funding and repeated his offer to discuss implementing a cap on all donations from individuals, businesses and trade unions.

Sir Christopher Kelly's independent report into party funding (published back in 2011) recommended a £10,000 annual cap on individual donations. Ed Miliband has gone even further, proposing a cap of £5,000. But Cameron has so far been unwilling to agree to a cap of less than £50,000 - that's twice the national average yearly wage.

The problem with a cap of this magnitude is that it would mean wealthy individuals would still be able to donate a quarter of a million pounds over the course of a parliamentary term - leaving "big money" still very much part and parcel of politics.

Whilst the biggest source of Labour's income is from our membership subs and small donations - with even union affiliation accounting for less than a quarter of our revenue - the Tories are mostly funded by a small group of very rich donors. Indeed, recent research by the London School of Economics found that more than half of the Conservative Party's donations between 2001 and 2010 came from just 50 "donor groups".

In particular, the Tories rely heavily for their funding on individuals and companies associated with hedge funds. In recent years, for example, 18 people associated with hedge funds have donated more than £22million.

What is the influence of this small group of multi-millionaires who are bank rolling the Tories? There have been questions, for example, about what influence the hedge fund owners of Circle Health (the first private hospital operator in the NHS) have had on the Government's health policy, given that they have donated £863,000 to the Tory party and have been able to gain access to Cameron through private diners.

Interestingly, every single one of the 18 hedge fund donors mentioned above have attended private dinners with the Prime Minister or senior ministers. It must have been a complete coincidence, of course, that George Osborne decided to abolish stamp duty reserve tax on funds in his latest Budget - a £145million give-away to hedge funds.

But this is not the worst of it. The Conservative Party has also pulled in millions of pounds from hidden donors through a loophole that allows wealthy backers to fund the party while keeping their identities secret.

Unincorporated Associations are legal entities that do not have to publish accounts or other financial details. This mechanism has been utilised in Tory constituencies across the country so that people can donate anonymously. For example, the Principal Patrons Club has donated over £40,000 to David Cameron's Whitney constituency Conservative Party association since 2010. And in Michael Gove's constituency, the Magna Carta Club has donated £22,000.

Trade union donations are legally required to be open and transparent, but with these Unincorporated Associations, there is no way of knowing who is actually donating the money. This clearly needs to change.

And all of this of course comes on the back of the Government's decision to give a tax cut of £100,000 to 13,000 millionaires, at the same time as the average family is set to lose £891 this year from tax rises and benefit changes.

Cameron thinks that if he spends the next two years simply attacking the unions, a general election victory for the Conservatives is in the bag. But the issue of Tory party funding is not going to go away. This week, Ed Miliband has put his marker down and has shown that he is willing to face up to the big challenges in reforming the way Labour does our business and funds our politics. There is no doubt that the changes could be hard for Labour, but they are clearly the right thing to do.

It's now time for Cameron to step up to the plate and show some leadership. When it comes to party funding, we all desperately need a new way of doing things. Business as usual will just not do. It is time we took big money out of politics for good. Will Cameron rise to the challenge? I very much doubt it. But the questions about how the Tories raise their money isn't going to go away any time soon.

But it is a book well worth reading. Russell is also founder and head of Reflections Art in Health, a national charity (based in Barnsley) that is dedicated to promoting the visual and performing arts as an aid to recovery for those, like Russell himself, who have suffered with mental health issues. Russell writes with the same infectious passion that marks the man himself. There is no side to Tony Russell and the book he has produced is deeply personal, refreshingly honest and thoroughly optimistic.

With all his years as a tireless charity campaigner, Russell has met with ministers and MPs from across the political spectrum. Commons People is based on a series of interviews the author conducted with a cross section of today's Members of Parliament. There are the rising stars (like Esther McVey and Nicky Morgan from the Conservatives, or Dan Jarvis and Liz Kendall from Labour). Russell interviewed some of the old hands (like Stephen Dorrell and Sir Peter Bottomley). He spoke to some of Parliament's real characters (like Stephen Pound and Jacob Rees Mogg) and also to some of the most high profile campaigners in the Commons (like Gloria De Piero from Labour or Charles Walker from Tories).

Altogether, Russell was 'in conversation' with some 40 MPs from all parties so it's impossible to mention everyone. Speaking to BBC Radio Sheffield yesterday, Russell said that 39 MPs out of the 40 he interviewed were "not boring". He wouldn't divulge who the one boring MP was - I sincerely hope it wasn't me!

Russell asks all sorts of questions. Some are obvious - like asking the MPs to list their inspirations, their expectations, their highs and their lows. Others included: "What keeps you awake at night?" Or: "If you were prime minister, what would be the one thing you would do?" With regard to the latter, Stephen Pound MP replied: "If I was elected as prime minister I'd demand a recount".

Reading Russell's book, it is striking that all of the MPs he interviewed argued that they went into politics for the right reasons - to change things and to make life better for people. Most said that they valued their work in the constituency the most. Of course you'd expect us MPs to say that, but it also happens to be true. Politics at its best is a vocation and a public service. And Russell wants the reader to see the best in people. As he himself states:

"In writing this book I am hoping that I can, in my own small way, create a better understanding of the people that make the decisions that affect all our lives, and maybe even encourage the great British public to take a much greater interest in the work of our elected representatives".

It was revealing that when Russell asked the MPs to discuss their hobbies, interests and passions, the replies we gave were perfectly ordinary. Kevin Brennan has his guitar, Greg Mulholland MP likes to go running, Phil Wilson MP loves Jazz, and Ann Coffey MP has her photography. Most also talked about spending time with their families, enjoying a glass of wine or watching sport. These things may be a little boring, but they are certainly 'human'.

But in an era of continued cynicism about politicians, whose reputations nose-dived further after the MPs' expenses scandal of the last parliament, and at a time of falling participation in our democracy, Russell's book has a bigger objective than just trying to show politicians in a 'human' light. As the Tory Andrew Bridgen MP said: "Parliamentary democracy is not perfect, but it is better than any of the alternatives".

Commons People is unlikely to make much headway in getting politicians to be more trusted by the public. As my Labour colleague Gloria De Piero has been asking the public, with her characteristic, no-nonsense approach: "It's like I'm an axe murderer - why do you hate me?!" At the end of the day it is only us MPs, with all of our faults and frailties, that can try and earn greater trust from the public by how we work and how we behave.

Russell's attempt to try and single-handedly turn around public opinion may be a hero's task. But it is a task for which he should be thoroughly commended. In the process, he's also managed to produce a book about politics that is both extremely well-written and genuinely engaging

Michael Dugher is MP for Barnsley East and Vice Chair of the Labour Party. He is one of the MPs interviewed in 'Commons People: MPs Are Human Too']]>It's Not Just the Economy, It's the Inequality, Stupidtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28860892013-03-15T19:00:00-04:002013-05-15T05:12:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
India's economy is growing at a phenomenal rate and it feels like a country in a hurry. On his recent trade visit to the country, David Cameron said he wanted UK companies to help India develop new cities and districts, generating investment projects potentially worth up to $25 billion.

Some argue that all that is needed to tackle the awful poverty in India is simply to keep focus on growing the economy and that prosperity and opportunities will eventually "trickle down" to the poor. But from my experiences in India, I'm not convinced. The vast economic growth in recent times has been joined by growing inequalities of income and wealth, adding to existing inequalities between gender, class, tribal and religious groups.

Globally, we have made huge strides in tackling poverty through international development and foreign aid. Indeed, extreme income poverty has dropped from two billion in 1990 to less than 1.3 billion today. And incredibly, child mortality has almost halved in that time. But the gap between rich and poor children globally has grown by some 35 per cent.

The effect that this inequality has is devastating, especially for children, who are hit twice as hard by inequality, despite its causes not being of their making. Almost half of all children under-five in India are so malnourished that they are stunted - leaving them less able to fight off common and easily preventable illnesses such as diarrhoea and pneumonia.

When we visited Dhapadhipi, the awful slums in Kolkata, we saw how community health volunteers were measuring the arms of babies using a tape, developed by Save the Children, which had a simple colour-code for healthy, moderately malnourished and severely malnourished (green-amber-red). We met two year-old Pritam who was measured in front of us - his mother was delighted to see the measuring tape record green for healthy. Sadly, countless other mothers see red for severely malnourished.

Last year, 1.6 million Indian children died before their fifth birthday - almost a quarter of all global child deaths. And although people living in India make up 18 per cent of the world's population, it is home to nearly a third of those living with less than $2 a day.

On one of our visits in South Delhi, we met a family who lived in a small room that was about the third of the size of my garage back home in England. We spoke to Prashuram, who lives in the small room with his wife, their son, Rajkumar, their daughter in-law, Shalini, and their two grandchildren. The family, particularly the children, rely heavily on Save the Children for health and educational services. This was just one example of millions living in poverty across the country.

Save the Children rightly argue that tackling inequality is one of the most effective ways to accelerate reductions in global poverty. By returning to 1990 levels of inequality, India could reduce the numbers of people living on $2 a day by 240 million by 2030 - meaning India would be on track to completely eradicate this form of income poverty by the early 2030s.

But addressing inequality worldwide is not solely for the purposes of reducing poverty. In India, for example, there was massive social unrest over gender inequality recently after the lack of action following an abhorrent gang rape of a young female student on a bus. More unequal societies perform worse in terms of child development outcomes, it undermines peoples' sense of self-worth, weakens social cohesion and stifles economic growth. This is acknowledged by the IMF, which warned in a recent report that the "cost of high inequality to the wellbeing of society can be very high".

It is now clear, more than ever, that we need to tackle all forms of inequality in order to create fairer, safer societies for all, especially children. Some 70 per cent of the world's poorest people live in middle income countries and some large regions in India have similar levels of poverty and deprivation to the poorest African countries.

David Cameron, in his role as co-chair of the High Level Panel on the post-2015 development framework, has set the goal of eradicating absolute poverty by 2030. But it is clear that this will not be possible without a clear focus on reducing inequality.

A lot of good work has been done already, but what was made abundantly clear to me during my visit to India was that there is still so much left to do. And it shouldn't just be about the economy. It's the inequality, stupid, too.

Michael Dugher is MP for Barnsley East, Vice-Chair of the Labour Party and a Parliamentary Champion for Save the Children]]>We Know the Economics of Cameron's Europe Speech Is a Disaster, But the Politics Is All Wrong Tootag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25405392013-01-24T06:04:43-05:002013-03-26T05:12:01-04:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
Cameron claims to want to stay in the EU, but for many in the Conservative Party, getting the prime minister to commit now to an in/out referendum is not about consent, but about exit. Indeed we learnt last week that as many as nine members of Cameron's cabinet wish to campaign for Britain's withdrawal from Europe with potentially catastrophic implications for the national economy.

And what a contrast between the position adopted by the politicians in Cameron's cabinet and the stark warning we've received in recent days from senior business leaders across the country. People such as Sir Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP Group, Sir Roger Carr, the chairman of Centrica, and Ian Powell, the UK chairman of PwC, have all been clear in warning of the dire consequences for the UK in leaving the EU.

"An exit would be very bad for British business and the economy as a whole. The UK must not become a peripheral country on the edge of Europe. This will be damaging to long-term prospects of British business and also in the country's ability to attract new international companies to set up and employ people in the country."

It simply doesn't make sense to leave the largest trading bloc in the world - with a GDP of €12.6 trillion in 2011 - and give up the ability to influence the rules of the market where almost half of all UK exports end up.

Much of what Europe facilitates is good for Britain - like tackling cross-border crime and making sure that murderers and paedophiles who have committed crimes in the UK don't escape justice. But we should be demanding more and the case for change in some areas is overwhelming.

This is why Labour is calling for reforms that will help make the EU more focused on promoting jobs and growth, including reducing and reforming the EU Budget and having a European commissioner with sole responsibility for promoting growth in the EU. Ed Miliband has highlighted the need for more flexibility on regional policy and issues such as EU procurement rules so that Britain can pursue a proper industrial strategy without hindrance.

And Douglas Alexander spoke last week about giving member states more flexibility on how they implement transitional arrangements for new member states joining the EU. He also highlighted the need for a review of the impact of EU legislation on family entitlements for EU immigrants within the UK.

Labour's approach is that to get the best deal for Britain we need to be round the table with our allies in Europe, not shouting from the sidelines with one foot already out of the door. History has shown that it is through building alliances and coalitions that reforms can be won, not by standing from afar and making undeliverable demands for unilateral repatriation. Cameron's approach presumes that the changes he wants will be agreed in Europe. But this naive approach to diplomacy just won't work and there will be a real price to pay, as the policy chairman at the City of London Corporation, Mark Bolaet, warned yesterday:

"Uncertainty over this relationship with Europe risks making the UK less attractive as an international centre across many industries - not just financial and professional services - by clouding the business environment and making it more difficult to make long-term investment decisions."

Of course, Labour has not ruled out a referendum in the future. Indeed, we have repeated our support for the fact that major treaty changes have to be subject to a referendum. But promising one now is irresponsible and bad for Britain. As Lord Heseltine, the prime minister's own adviser on economic growth, has said:

"To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn't begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that's unknown, where Britain's appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble."

We always knew that Cameron would get a decent reception from today's largely anti-European newspapers (though their influence, like their readership, is fading). The prime minister may even get a temporary boost in the polls (but, as happened with the veto that never was, any bounce may well be short-lived). But this speech is not a political game-changer for Cameron. The truth is his political problems on Europe are only just beginning.

The veteran former Labour MP and whip Tommy McAvoy, now Lord McAvoy, once remarked that Europe for the Tories was "the political equivalent of a full moon - all kinds of strange creatures come out". The prime minister knows full well his approach is all about politics - he is hoping to neutralise Ukip and satisfy the anti-Europeans in his own party with one speech.

But outright hostility towards Europe inside the Conservative party is rampant - it's a beast that doesn't get full. And Lord Ashcroft warned Cameron yesterday that "Europe is not much of a priority even for those who say they might vote Ukip; the EU is just one of the (many) things they are cross about. For that reason, we should not necessarily expect a big fall in the Ukip vote as a result of The Speech." Nigel Farage has already said he is happy as from now on the "debate will be taking place on terms that Ukip wants".

Add to all of this, a string of leading European allies yesterday queued up to criticise Cameron, leaving the prime minister looking increasingly weak and isolated in Europe. All of this makes the much-needed task of reforming Europe to serve the British national interest even harder.

We know that the economics of Cameron's position is a disaster. But the politics is all wrong too.]]>It's Time Cameron Stopped Running Scared and Accepted Ed Miliband's Challenge for TV Debatestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22766872012-12-11T09:03:28-05:002013-02-10T05:12:02-05:00Michael Dugherhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dugher/
It's true that the debates were hard work and caused uncomfortable moments for all three Party leaders - but that's why they matter. Defending your record and putting forward your vision for the future is something all politicians have to do. It's something this Prime Minister seems to resent.

But it's not just in relation to the TV debates where our previously publicity-seeking prime minister has gone all shy. Do you know when David Cameron last held his monthly press conference at Number 10 Downing Street? Astonishingly, it was 8 July 2011, more than 17 months ago. On that occasion, he was questioned extensively about why he had chosen to employ the disgraced Andy Coulson as Director of Government Communications. Maybe that explains why he decided it was better to avoid communicating at all.

Prime Minister's Questions is another opportunity for the Prime Minister to be held to account, both by the Leader of the Opposition and by backbenchers from all sides of the House. But the Government controls the Parliamentary timetable and the reality is that more than half of next year's parliamentary recesses will start ridiculously on a Tuesday - meaning that Mr Cameron doesn't have to face PMQs on the Wednesday.

And Cameron has managed to schedule overseas visits - for example his trip to the USA last Spring and last month's visit to the Middle East - so that they conveniently get in the way of him turning up in the Commons on a Wednesday to answer questions.

But it's not just the Opposition who have the job of holding the Prime Minister to account: journalists do it too. Yet David Cameron, unlike his predecessors, is reluctant to take the the broad spectrum of the British media with him on his official trips. On last month's Middle East tour, Downing Street restricted the number of reporters travelling with the Prime Minister, reportedly because he was "increasingly impatient" about having to give interviews.

On his trip to the USA and Brazil in September, there was plenty of room on the plane for people who have reportedly, quite coincidentally we are told, given large amounts of money to the Tories. It seems the easiest way to put a question to the Prime Minister is to first make a large donation to the Conservative Party. This gives a whole new dimension to "cash for questions".

It's true that David Cameron has a difficult record to defend. His economic failure, with less growth, more borrowing and more debt, and with people on low and middle incomes paying the price while millionaires get a tax cut, is something he doesn't want to talk about. He doesn't like to be reminded that he promised no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS, then spent billions on one while cutting over 7,000 nurses. He would prefer to avoid admitting that he's cutting at least 15,000 police officers.

But enough of excuses and prevarication. The truth is David Cameron looks like a tired old former prize fighter, with a glass jaw and desperate to avoid the ring. In stark contrast, Ed Miliband relishes the chance to debate with Cameron in front of a massive public audience. Cameron was right when he said in 2010 that TV debates are good for our democracy. Ed Miliband is challenging Cameron to finally stop pussyfooting around and commit to debating the problems facing our country and the changes we need for the future. It's time Cameron accepted the challenge - and stopped running scared.

Michael Dugher is the Labour MP for Barnsley East and Vice-Chair of the Labour party]]>